Congress, but it is limited and subject to limitation by the proscriptions of the Constitution, one of which is the second amendment. In this connection, my personal view of the total effect of H.R. 6628 is that it is not a regulatory measure, but carries the badges of prohibition.

It might be well to mention here that the section 2 (a) and (g) will virtually shut down the antique arms business, but it is pleasing to note that the sponsors of this bill have proposed an amendment eliminating antique arms from coverage. Further, section 2(g) will prohibit a hunter or tournament shooter from shipping his guns ahead to his outfitter or club at a destination out of his home State. I feel this restriction is positively unreasonable and is an infringement of the right to bear arms.

In addition, it should be pointed out that section 2(b) (2) of the proposed act is in further direct violation of article II of the Bill of Rights in that it prohibits certain of our citizens, those under 21, from purchasing handguns anywhere or under any condition whatsoever, and further prohibits our citizens under 18 years of age from purchasing their first shotgun or .22 rifle, and I submit to you, flares directly into the face of the constitutional right to own and bear arms. Reasonable regulation of acquisition by minors could very well have some good effect, and in this regard, what would be more effective than parental consent to acquisition? However, this answer is for State legislatures.

Passing for a moment to other sections of the bill, the effect of which should be pointedly explained to this committee and to the House of Representatives, is the absolutely outrageous proscription set forth in section 2(b) (3) wherein it is prohibited that a citizen of our country in another State buy a handgun from a licensed dealer, irrespective of age or any necessity, even a tournament pistol shooter at an out-of-State shoot. Again it is submitted that this flies directly into the face of the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Digressing for one moment, I suggest that there has not been placed before this committee any testimony from any competent police or law-enforcing official which would suggest that law-enforcing organizations are not extremely dependent upon a well-armed law-abiding citizenry, for the simple reason that our police departments can never be large enough to protect all citizens under all conditions from the various forces of evil and violence. The city of New York and your own city are examples. Let us assume that you as a U.S. Senator are traveling in one of our States and have your life and the safety of your wife or family threatened. Of course, you will advise the police, but in following your God-given heritage and commonsense, I suggest you would also go immediately to a gun dealer and purchase the best means of protection of yourself and your family. If this bill be passed, you will be prohibited from doing so. Gentlemen, it would seem to me that the conclusion is inescapable that if this bill be passed, it will have the effect of partial disarmament of our citizenry. I wish time permitted further exploration of this point.

To pass to other sections of the bill, it would seem that the sections dealing with definitions and license fees could have no other effect than to cast undue burden and hardship on our shooting world. For example, there are perhaps a million individuals in this country who conduct a "custom hand-loading service" for other hunters whereby they carefully hand load once-fired rifle cartridges on a cooperative plan for distribution to their members. However, it is again pleasing to note that the administration has suggested an amendment to S. 1592 which would eliminate rifle, shotgun, and pistol ammunition; however, this elimination must be made clear throughout the entire act, particularly in the license fee provisions. There are literally thousands of individuals throughout our country who carry on a part-time business of customs stocking and custom rebarreling, a great deal of it as out-of-State business, and in a great many cases by retired gunsmiths. These definitions and license fee requirements would be disastrous to these operations and to the source of ammunition and gunwork here described. This is not to mention prohibitive increases in license fees for a firearms and ammunition dealer. Each of you is familiar with the small country stores throughout the United States that during the hunting seasons keep on hand small supplies of guns and ammunition for the 20 million people in the hunting fraternity. For them to have to pay such license fees will simply cause them to cease such sales and business. Again, it is pleasing to note that the administration has offered to reduce the proposed increases in license fees and eliminate ammunition, but I submit that they are still prohibitive for these small operations, and strike at dealers in pistols.

A great many of the skeet and trap shooters in the United States purchase and use Canadian Industries, Ltd., shot shells, and a good number of gun clubs order their ammunition from Canada. The definition of "importer" would, even by the amendments offered, require licensing of them. This is prohibitive due to the very small margin of profit in the sale of ammunition, and the definition of "dealer" means any person engaged in the business of selling firearms or ammunition at wholesale or retail, and that raises in my mind the question as to what "engaged in the business" means. Clarification of this question is placed in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, and I submit he is not qualified, nor is he a Member of Congress.

I hope I have pointed out to you thoughtful and responsible gentlemen some of the harmful and dangerous aspects of this proposed legislation, not to mention the unconstitutionality of the various provisions discussed. I should like here to submit to the committee what is felt to be a most serious aspect of the bill. Throughout the several provisions of the proposed bill, there is delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his deputy, the right to make substantive law regarding the transportation and shipment of firearms and the securing of licenses, etc. He might, under section 2(a)(1), prohibit guns as baggage for flying sportsmen such as hunters and tournament shooters, or he very well could determine "lawful purpose" under section 2(a)(1) of the bill to exclude any of the matters that he personally felt not necessary or beneficial to society. He could, under section 3(g), require dealers to register guns sold. You gentlemen should be cognizant of the history concerning the dangers of gun registration without my having to discuss the matter further, but I would invite questions concerning the disasters of registration.

Should such be so made by any Secretary or delegate, it is submitted it would be a usurpation of the legislative authority vested in Congress by article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Such power of authority as is here sought to be delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury has been stricken down by our Supreme Court on a great many previous occasions, and reference should here be made to the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case, the Schechter Poultry Corporation case, and many others which I would be glad to furnish to the committee or its counsel. We free citizens of the United States are entitled to have our laws restricting our liberty be enacted by Congress and by Congress only, and not by the whim and opinion of an individual in office.

The committee has been kind enough to furnish to me copies of the statements from the Treasury Department and others in support of S. 1592. These statements have taken issue with the arguement that I have here propounded that the Secretary can act in a capricious and arbitrary way. They have stated that the Secretary has never acted in this fashion. I would call to their attention, and to your attention, the attempt by the Treasury in August of 1957 to recodify the Federal Firearms Act with changes of regulations. A public hearing was demanded within the 30-day time limit, and to the surprise of the Treasury Department, almost 700 people, including approximately 40 Congressmen, showed up at this hearing to oppose these regulations. Needless to say, the Treasury Department withdrew entirely its proposed regulations. It is for this reason that our framers of the Constitution require that our laws be passed by Congress. A reading of the Declaration of Independence will educate anybody on the reason as to why they thought this portion of the Constitution necessary.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE BILL

I should like to state here that there are certain provisions which I believe advantageous, but I believe they have no place in this bill. The attitude of the bill toward regulation of the sale and possession of "heavy ordnance" such as cannons, machineguns, and bazookas is well taken; it has been thoughtfully suggested that these regulations could well fall within amendments to the National Firearms Act, and I believe measures have been made in S. 1591. Secondly, the importation of "heavy ordnance" could well be managed and regulated by amendment to our tariff laws.

In passing, might I submit that conscientious and strict enforcement of the laws we presently have, with carefully drawn amendments that have been suggested to this committee for S. 1965, by Hickenlooper, omitting the need for the sworn certificate to be returned to a local law-enforcing officer, will be the greatest aid in achieving the purpose we all seek, the suppression of crime. It has been suggested to me, and I pass it on to you for thought, that the States might do

well to examine the philosophy and application of our laws pertaining to juvenile offenders. They are now treated as adults by everyone except our law and its enforcing bodies. Personally, I believe that the delinquency problem has been principally due to parents' abrogation of their responsibilities.

In closing, gentlemen, may I again sincerely thank you for extending to me the privilege to be heard upon this most urgent and grave matter. I respectfully suggest that there are forces and groups in the United States which are attempting to stampede this body of respected and responsible lawmakers into blindly passing an act the ramifications of which will be in derogation of the constitutional right and liberties of our people.

This bill will not attain the purpose of the suppression of crime, but on the other hand will unduly and unconstitutionally hinder and infringe the rights of our public to own and bear arms. No responsible organization, gun owner, hunter, or sportsman denies the need for effective local laws aimed at the misuse of firearms in the commission of crimes, and I respectfully urge that this is the cure to be diagnosed from the disease that exists. In this regard, the associations here represented are in complete accord with the philosophy and principles announced by the National Rifle Association concerning such legislation. Guns never kill people-people kill people. Gentlemen, in passing our laws which have restrictive effect upon the liberties of our citizens, we should not "throw out the baby with the bath." The philosophy of the proposed bill will effect consequences on our free arms-bearing Nation of more harmful magnitude than the evils it seeks to suppress. This bill should not be passed.

It cannot be denied that the more responsible, thoughtful individuals who support passage of gun legislation have an honest, forthright, well-meaning purpose, but it is well to recall the words of warning of one of the great creators of English literature when he suggested, "The most harm is often done by those who desire to do the most good." Thank you.

JOE M. MCCRACKEN III.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. CARROLL, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATION COMMITTEE, NORTHSOUTH SKIRMISH ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John C. Carroll. My residence is 905 Navahoe Drive, Silver Spring, Md. By profession, I am a life insurance underwriter.

My interest in firearms began with my study of American history in school and continued with my service in the U.S. Marine Corps in World War II and the Korean conflict.

For about the past 6 years, I have seriously studied "firearms control" legislation and have from time to time, consulted with legislators and law enforce ment officials on the Federal, State, and local levels.

The North-South Skirmish Association, which I represent, is made up of target shooters using muzzle-loading firearms of the Civil War period. Its approximately 2,000 members reside in at least 20 States, primarily on the eastern seaboard, although there is substantial representation in the New England States and the Midwest.

The NSSA was organized in 1950 and incorporated under the Code of Virginia in 1958. About 120 eight-man "companies" competed at our 31st "Skirmish" in May this year at our home range near Winchester, Va. In addition, there are numerous regional and local musket matches held each year throughout the eastern United States.

As stated in our bylaws, the objectives of the association, include:

"To promote muzzle-loading rifle shooting through the use of Civil War weapons fired in the original manner and to encourage the preservation and display of Civil War military material.

"To commemorate the heroism of the man of both sides who fought in the Civil War, 1861-65, as a reminder of our national heritage."

"To conduct the form of company target competition known as skirmishes and to provide and maintain a uniform procedure for conducting these skirmishes safely for the pleasure of the competitors and spectators."

The directors of the association at their board meeting of May 15, 1965, asked me to request permission of the subcommittee to bring to its attention the detrimental effect that S. 1592 appeared to have on our version of the "Shooting Sport."

Those of us who choose to use firearms lawfully for recreation (target shooting, hunting, collecting, etc.), sympathize with the committee in its goal to curtail the misuse of firearms. We, too, do not want firearms to be in the hands of undesirable elements.

Having attended several of the recent hearings, I was pleased when the Honorable Chairman Senator Dodd, early in the hearings asked the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Unit to look into the effect of S. 1592 on antique firearms and that he, the chairman, felt that changes were needed in the bill in that

area.

Since virtually all of our shoulder firearms are .54 .58, and .69 caliber, we were originally concerned by their apparent inclusion as "destructive devices." Now, however, substantially all of our initial objections will have been met by the amendments proposed by the executive branch as reported in mid-July, by the Washington Post.

The wording of the definition of "antique firearm" appears to be well thought out and definitely appears to exclude from the bill, the muzzle-loading firearms used in our individual and company target matches.

We also approve the amended definition of "destructive device" as proposed. Such items (bombs, grenades, etc.) are specifically prohibited by our "skirmish rules."

We are concerned however, with section 3(a) (C) which sets a $100 license fee for dealers in firearms (other than dealers in destructive devices and pawnbrokers). We feel that this would work an indirect hardship on all lawful gun owners and particularly on muzzle loaders and collectors. Most of the persons in these latter two categories obtain their prized historical firearms from bona fide dealers by mail order. Only a very few dealers can restrict their trade to antiques and yet operate profitably. An arbitrary fee of $100 regardless of the size of the dealer's operation would in our opinion severely restrain trade and restrict competition in the sale of lawful firearms.

The present Federal controls and paperwork required by the law abiding is a burden, although the need for such is understood and accepted by all thinking lawful gun owners.

There is no doubt that there is a mail-order problem. It is shameless that children and criminals can obtain firearms from lawful sources by simply ordering through the mail. The person who illegally orders a pistol by mail should, in our opinion, be tracked down and dealt with under existing Federal law. We are more than willing to contend with reasonable mail-order restrictions, in fact we go on record as requesting such.

We strongly support the approach taken by Representative Casey, of Texas, for a mandatory prison sentence for those convicted of a crime of violence who uses or carries a firearm.

Admittedly, there is a real crime problem. Further, there is no denying that firearms figure in some crimes. However, placing obstacles in the way of the lawful would-be gun owner has not solved this problem in Washington, D.C., or in New York City. In fact, the reverse is true, trafficking in guns has gone underground.

Your attention is respectfully called to an article in the Washington Evening Star dated July 13, 1965, which brings out that there were 174 assault with a dangerous weapon arrests or complaints in May 1964.

Forty-two of these involved a knife and nine cases involved a gun. "Of the 174 ADW arrests or complaints in May 1964, not one had resulted in a felony conviction in district court when the cases were checked later, although three cases still were pending there."

Nine cases involved a gun, out of 174. This represents about 5 percent, perhaps an irreducible minimum, percentagewise.

It is beyond the realm of this testimony to delve into statistics. The above is quoted to point out that attacking the crime problem seems to lie in a different direction.

At the same time, there is no doubt whatsoever, but that Federal controls are needed to attack the firearms traffic problem.

We wholeheartedly back your aims and laud your tireless efforts to solve these difficult problems while at the same time protecting the rights of the lawful gun owner.

If there is any way that we can assist you, we welcome the opportunity.

LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

OFFICE OF CORONER,
St. Louis County, Mo., July 1, 1965.

Senator THOMAS DODD,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I am writing you regarding your Federal gun control bill, presently being considered in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee.

In order to introduce myself, I have been coroner of St. Louis County 81% years. I am chairman of the board of directors of the National Association of Coroners, chairman of the board of directors, Missouri State Coroner's Association, and consultant to the American Association of Criminology.

I have also authored 2 books on death investigation, the latest, "Outline of Death Investigation," published by Thomas Publishing Co.

I should like to heartily endorse your bill for two purposes.

First, approximately 75 percent of all of our homicides in St. Louis County (800,000 population) have been with firearms, many on the spur of the mo ment and in a heat of passion-deaths that otherwise would have been prevented were the firearms not available.

Secondly, St. Louis County, as other parts of the country, is witnessing a tremendous increase in suicides.

Our suicides for 6 months of this year are approximately 60 percent (38 as compared to 23) more than the same period in 1964.

Of the 38 suicides thus far this year, 22 have been as a result of guns. Again, were these guns not available during the period of depression, these suicides might have been prevented.

Also, were these guns more difficult to purchase or secure, some of these suicides would not have occurred. Many of these successful self-murders were by persons who have previously attempted or threatened to take their own lives.

In addition to the stricter regulations called for in your bill, I have requested a local program, which probably will be put in effect within the next month, of central reporting of all suicide threats and attempts. This will allow police checks on same before issuing permits.

This kind of program, together with your bill, will most certainly lower our suicide rates.

I firmly believe that the passage of your bill, together with stringent local surveillance and regulations, will cut our murders and suicides appreciably.

Very truly yours,

RAYMOND I. HARRIS, Coroner, St. Louis County, Mo.

HOUSTON, TEX., August 6, 1965.

Senator THOMAS J. DODD,

Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR DODD: I am writing this statement, at your invitation, in lieu of appearing personally to testify against the proposed legislation H.R. 6628. I would like this to be inserted in the printed record.

Briefly, this type of legislation, if enacted, would not accomplish its purpose, i.e., stopping criminals from getting guns.

I am qualified to testify on this subject as former Chief of Staff in the Philippine Guerrilla Forces on the island of Leyte, where our jungle arsenal made these same guerrilla guns by the thousands between 1942 and 1944. In addition, I was the first "zip gun" manufacturer in the United States. My company, Richardson Industries, East Haven, Conn., produced and sold over 2,600 guerrilla guns in 1945-46, which sold nationally for $4.98 to $7.98.

Serviceable shotguns, parts and labor, in quantities of 1,000, can be manufactured in any plumbing shop in America for less than $3 each. For an electric type trigger, for high accuracy, the same gun could be produced in quantity for less than $8 each. Fully automatic shotguns, for less than $20 each.

The reason for this low price and ready availability is the fact that the guns can be manufactured from standard 4- and 14-inch water pipe, steel rod, a welding torch and a metal disk with a nipple as a fixed firing pin. The gun is operated by bringing the barrel and shell manually back aganist the fixed firing pin. There are no moving parts.